MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195357759 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v15i2.6683

Maintaining Equitable and Inclusive Classroom Communities Online During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021· article· en· W3195357759 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sarah Elizabeth Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)FeelingPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Face (sociological concept)Quality (philosophy)Public relationsSociology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the ways in which face-to-face classroom communities were disrupted and/or transformed by the move to online platforms and the effect of this disruption on equitable access to a quality education. Quality education is defined as engaged pedagogy, where students learn to interact with other students and engage with ideas in a way that promotes their ability to be part of a community while still feeling free to disagree with, critique, and take care of each other. To examine the extent to which such communities were created when schooling migrated online during the pandemic, this paper examines online schooling communities in terms of sense of belonging, trust, shared purpose, and quality of interactions. The analysis of the experiences of 11 teachers in Ontario, Canada, whose face-to-face classes were moved to online formats, establishes that equity was one of the first casualties of the change, with the most vulnerable students facing disproportionate academic, psychological, and social consequences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207